"Sad to report that I've resigned from CNET," Sandoval wrote on Twitter on Monday morning. "I no longer have confidence that CBS is committed to editorial independence."

DISH introduced a new version of the Hopper at CES last week, and CNET gave it a glowing review. CNET even announced that DISH was being considered for CNET's "Best of CES" award.

But according to CNN, the corporate office then "laid down a ban: CNET won't be allowed to even review Dish products, much less give them awards." A notice at the bottom of CNET's Hopper review now states that "the Dish Hopper with Sling was removed from consideration for the Best of CES 2013 awards due to active litigation involving our parent company CBS Corp. We will no longer be reviewing products manufactured by companies with which we are in litigation with respect to such product."

"We are saddened that CNet's staff is being denied its editorial independence because of CBS's heavy-handed tactics," DISH CEO Joe Clayton said in a written statement quoted by CNN on Friday.

According to Sandoval, "CNET wasn't honest about what occurred regarding Dish." That, he said, "is unacceptable to me. We are supposed to be truth tellers."

Sandoval says that "no one in News or Reviews editorial did anything wrong. I believe CNET's leaders are also honest but used poor judgment."

"CBS and CNET were great to me," he concluded. "I just want to be known as an honest reporter."

Correction: The original version of this story suggested that CBS had banned all coverage of DISH products. The ban only applied to reviews, not news coverage.

Skipping commercials with a special commercial skipping feature is, as declared by CBS, a violation of the broadcaster's copyrights. The reason, as quoted from Fox in another Ars article, is that this device has "clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem". Bottom line? It skips commercials, which are revenue for broadcasters. Okay, I can kind of get that.

What I don't get is why other DVR products that allow you to do the same thing, but in a different way, have existed for a long time and have heard nary a peep from the content behemoths. What about when there's no built in feature and I skip the commercials with my HD HomeRun Prime anyway? What about TiVo and Comcast DVR owners that skip commercials by mashing the "Skip Forward" button?

Life in the modern day world has boiled down to technicalities. You can skip commercials with your Comcast DVR, but you can't with your DISH DVR simply because there's a dedicated button for it. Skipping commercials is skipping commercials. In both instances, the user has to choose to skip the commercials. With the Hopper, it's NOT okay because there's a dedicated button that you press once. With the Comcast or generic DVR, it's perfectly okay because you might have to press the button 3 or 4 times.

That's some pretty heavy handed stuff coming from an organization that a long time ago strongly believed in freedom of the press. I guess it doesn't count if the censorship comes from within the company itself.

Then again, Cnet should have at least deducted points from their Dish review based on the horrific ads they've been running for the Hopper. I'm failing to see how a series of ads staring the world's most bitterly emasculated husband is supposed to make me want to buy their product. Then again, if I had their product, I could skip over their ads... They may be geniuses...

I used to read CNET for their reviews because they had honest and good coverage. Seeing that CBS is deliberately inteferring with the editorial process at CNET and influencing their reviews, I can no longer read CNT reviews because I have no faith in their integrity.

Good on Mr. Sandoval for taking a stand. I hope he can find new work quickly.

Skipping commercials with a special commercial skipping feature is, as declared by CBS, a violation of the broadcaster's copyrights. The reason, as quoted from Fox in another Ars article, is that this device has "clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem". Bottom line? It skips commercials, which are revenue for broadcasters. Okay, I can kind of get that.

What I don't get is why other DVR products that allow you to do the same thing, but in a different way, have existed for a long time and have heard nary a peep from the content behemoths. What about when there's no built in feature and I skip the commercials with my HD HomeRun Prime anyway? What about TiVo and Comcast DVR owners that skip commercials by mashing the "Skip Forward" button?

Life in the modern day world has boiled down to technicalities. You can skip commercials with your Comcast DVR, but you can't with your DISH DVR simply because there's a dedicated button for it. Skipping commercials is skipping commercials. In both instances, the user has to choose to skip the commercials. With the Hopper, it's NOT okay because there's a dedicated button that you press once. With the Comcast or generic DVR, it's perfectly okay because you might have to press the button 3 or 4 times.

Makes perfect sense. Thanks content distributors!

I think part of their problem with it (without doing any research, cause I'm lazy) is that it renders the comercials engineered for systems where you see the video skipping forward no longer visible.

As governments and multinational corporations grow they are continuing to build a filtered and profit guided version of the world around us. Thankfully there are people out there, like Mr. Sandoval, who believe in the freedom of the press and show us that while the media is bought and paid for we can fight against the erosion of our basic freedoms.

Life in the modern day world has boiled down to technicalities. You can skip commercials with your Comcast DVR, but you can't with your DISH DVR simply because there's a dedicated button for it. Skipping commercials is skipping commercials.

The "technicality" here is that people taking the time to skip commercials manually has been challenged in court - the Supreme Court of the United States, in fact - and the challengers lost.

But that case only sets the precendent of letting companies sell devices with "substantial non-infringing uses".

Dish isn't selling a device with non-infringing uses, they are providing an automated service which doesn't require the viewer to do anything other than request that shows - from several networks, simultaneously - be stripped of all commercials, and the commercial-less shows stored for later vewing.

I think Dish's Hopper is a great idea, but I also think the networks would be stupid to let this go un-challenged in court - because I don't see any "substantial non-infringing uses" in Dish's service.

Once upon a time a reporter would go find the news happening and relate that. They would even go as far as to relay what was actually happening regardless of whether the subject being reported on wanted that image released to the public or not.

Now it seems a reporters job is to read the press releases of companies that are approved by their employer. Since the modern definition of "Press Release" is a synonym of "Marketing Material" I'm thinking that by extension the modern definition of reporter is now "Multi-firm Marketing Agent."

I like it when the shiny covering is peeled back and this new reality shows through. I'm even happier to see people oppose this new standard. That the opposition of the new standard has shown some of that reality is great. The sad part is that it will likely not make it to any mainstream press. In fact, it can be guaranteed to not make it to somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 since CBS would never allow these details to go out on it's own network. Maybe one of it's competitors could try shedding light on their bad practices, but they likely won't as it would likely result in reciprocal action against themselves. What would be really great is to have something similar happen with a high-profile reporter in the national news scene.

Not an easy decision to make, so kudos to Mr. Sandoval for taking a stand.

Now if only he'd taken a stand on the side of a good organization against a sleazy one, instead of two sleazy organizations fighting each other.

CBS... DISH... pick your poison.

Of all TV providers, Dish has to be one of the least sleazy. In fact, I don't know if they're sleazy at all.

As for Sandoval, he's probably already fielding multiple job offers. Including from Ars

mikiev wrote:

chipmunkofdoom2 wrote:

Life in the modern day world has boiled down to technicalities. You can skip commercials with your Comcast DVR, but you can't with your DISH DVR simply because there's a dedicated button for it. Skipping commercials is skipping commercials.

The "technicality" here is that people taking the time to skip commercials manually has been challenged in court - the Supreme Court of the United States, in fact - and the challengers lost.

But that case only sets the precendent of letting companies sell devices with "substantial non-infringing uses".

Dish isn't selling a device with non-infringing uses, they are providing an automated service which doesn't require the viewer to do anything other than request that shows - from several networks, simultaneously - be stripped of all commercials, and the commercial-less shows stored for later vewing.

I think Dish's Hopper is a great idea, but I also think the networks would be stupid to let this go un-challenged in court - because I don't see any "substantial non-infringing uses" in Dish's service.

But it doesn't strip then store them. It stores the stream, commercials and all. It just skips on playback.

I think Dish's Hopper is a great idea, but I also think the networks would be stupid to let this go un-challenged in court - because I don't see any "substantial non-infringing uses" in Dish's service.

Be that as it may, the reasoning for banning reviews is hard to follow, especially for a subsidiary. I understand the potential for conflict, but as long as the relationship with CBS is disclosed by CNET during the reviews, I don't see the problem of continuing reviews. This would be like Ars not covering anything that involved Condé Nast.

I am always amazed that there are media people who actually think that trying to muzzle a story is a good idea. It never works and always reflects badly on the attempt. CBS has just turned a low-visibility tech story into a high-visibility "freedom of the press" issue.

This is the first time I've seen copyright infringement by EXCLUDING material.

This isn't the first time. Hollywood studies, with the support of major directors like Spielberg, have previously shut down a company that was making sanitized versions of hit movies but stripping out swear words and sexual content.

This is the first time I've seen copyright infringement by EXCLUDING material.

They claim its because they are modifing content within the copyrighted broadcast which includes the commercial. I sort of see their point but I don't watch traditional tv anymore, i just purchase the digital versions, or watch it for free on the network's website.

I can't stand commercials, commercials use to make sense because the content was free, since most of the time were paying to see the same content we can see for free commercials don't make a great deal sense anymore.

I am speaking of ABC, CBS, and NBC, and lesser extent FOX. Cable networks like say A&E would have never been free and commercials make sense there.

IANAL but I think the copyright claim is a bunch of malarkey! If it is legitimate, then the copyright system is just as broken as the patent system.

What the Hopper (I hate that I can't say it in my head without the stupid accent from the commercials) does is seriously undermines the outdated revenue model on which CBS and other broadcasters depend. I don't know what the revenue model of the future will look like, but it's not the current one. If their lawsuit is successful all it will do is postpone the inevitable.

And more on topic, I'm glad that someone decided to take a stand for journalistic integrity. With increased media consolidation, the risk of this type of censorship is increasing dramatically. With a few media megacorps controlling so much it will be hard to find cases where there isn't some sort of relationship (positive or negative) between a media outlet's parent, child or sibling companies and whatever company they are trying to cover. If this continues unchecked "news" will be nothing more than marketing.

Greg Sandoval mostly covered copyright issues in the music industry. While not exactly the same thing as the conflict between CBS and the Dish Hopper, this controversy has to hit pretty close to home given the similarities between the industries. Hopefully he'll land somewhere that won't sell out the way CNET did.

Edward R Murrow had to deal with CBS fawning over celebrities, so he could do his job and tell the important stories. It's one thing to pander to the low taste of the American public (hard to overestimate). This is worse. It's censorship. Commercial censorship, and it's legal. But it's short-sighted. It will hurt CBS in the long run much worse than a review of a product that they wrongly claim violates copyright. Corporate drones are stupid to think we don't notice.

If CBS doesn't want their commercials skipped, then they should not be charging DISH to carry their network, including local affiliates. In essence, what they're defending is having the subscribers pay to see their advertisements.

I'm so glad to see someone standing up for journalistic integrity. Thank you Mr. Sandoval.

Once upon a time a reporter would go find the news happening and relate that. They would even go as far as to relay what was actually happening regardless of whether the subject being reported on wanted that image released to the public or not.

Now it seems a reporters job is to read the press releases of companies that are approved by their employer. Since the modern definition of "Press Release" is a synonym of "Marketing Material" I'm thinking that by extension the modern definition of reporter is now "Multi-firm Marketing Agent." ....

Nah, the media has always sucked. In former times you had broadsheets advocating the assassination of political candidates.

This is the first time I've seen copyright infringement by EXCLUDING material.

You will watch what they want you to watch, when they want you to watch it, and at the price they want you to pay no matter what. And they will continue to buy off our government and get laws put into place to make this a reality.

More on topic, kudos for standing up for journalistic integrity. I for one don't watch standard media "news" coverage cause it is controlled by a handful of people. Just look at the black out that occurred around all the activity surrounding SOPA/PIPA when it was happening. It was not in the parent companies interest to bring it into the public eye because they were the ones pushing for those laws in the first place. The news is a joke in the United States.

"I no longer have confidence that CBS is committed to editorial independence."

He once did have such confidence? He wasn't paying attention, then.

I would assume he worked there several years without the parent company interfering with his coverage.

That's an important point, you don't see the lack of freedom as long you conform and toe the party line, but that dosen't mean the lack of editorial integrity wasn't always present. You see the same problems in many different contexts, everyone denies that the velvet straight-jacket exists until they are bound by it.

Trying to recall a more blatant example of corporate ownership censoring a tech news outlet, and I'm coming up empty. Anyone else?

Gerstmann-gate at the old Gamespot leading to Jeff Gerstmann's departure and forming his own video game site, Giant Bomb, is somewhat similar. Basically, the higher-ups at Gamespot wanted him to tone down a negative game review because the game's publisher had purchased advertising on the site. Jeff wouldn't do it so the revisions were done for him (you can find "before" and "after" text on the web). He didn't compromise and was fired shortly thereafter, which also led to the departures of several other key Gamespot staffers. I see the same thing happening here.

Coincidentally Giant Bomb was purchased by CBSi last year so I'm wondering how this affects them, if at all.

In the world of journalism, it's better long term to be credible than to be seen as one willing to push a corporation's agenda. He may have to take a pay cut in the short term, but if CNET continues down this road where their credibility is put into question, having them on your resume will hurt you down the road.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.